DEVALUATION OF FAMILY AND MARRIAGE

The family, the most fundamental unit of society, is under attack as never before. Adultery, divorce, cohabitation, child abuse, spousal abuse, homosexuality, abortion, teen pregnancies, pornography, disobedient children, economic struggles, an increasing unwillingness among married couples to bear and rear children, are all evidence of the major effort under way in today’s society to destroy the sanctity of family and marriage, demean the importance of the role of men and women, encourage moral uncleanliness, and discourage parents from placing the rearing of children as one of their highest priorities.

INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF MARRIAGE

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society. The development, productivity, and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health, and enduring strength of society.

For millennia, societies have defined marriage as exclusively a union between a man and a woman. All successful societies have encouraged marriage because it is essential to promoting and protecting strong families. Throughout history, strong families have been the foundation of all successful and resilient societies.

CALL TO ACTION

The society we live in today is in turmoil, with constantly shifting values. Radical voices advocate one thing or another in betrayal of time-tested standards of behavior. The moorings of our society have been badly shaken.

We call upon all responsible citizens and government officials to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Marriage is not an evolutionary institution. It is deeply rooted in the history, culture, and tradition of civil society. It predates the Constitution of the United States, and indeed the United States themselves, by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it must not be redefined by unelected, activist courts “legislating” outside the bounds of the Constitutional balance of powers.

Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. The distribution of such benefits to married couples and not to singles or homosexual partners has nothing to do with discrimination; instead it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

The Legislature is Idaho’s lawmaking body. The Governor’s responsibility is to carry out those laws made by the Legislature. The state Judiciary’s role is to decide cases where there is a conflict regarding the meaning of the laws or the state constitution. In Idaho, these are primarily elected positions, ultimately accountable to the people. In this structure there is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of power. One branch is not to do the work of another. It is not the job of judges to make laws, nor legislators to command the National Guard, not the governor’s role to resolve disputes between private individuals. To do otherwise is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

On the federal level, an elected Congress enacts laws. An elected President administers these laws. The appointed Judiciary is to resolve disputes regarding points of law and interpret the constitution, not discover previously unrecognized rights and spin new laws out of whole cloth. We maintain that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage or preservation of the family.

PROTECTING THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF MARRIAGE

There is a major political and legal effort to redefine the requirements for entering into marriage to allow same-sex couples, or any two persons regardless of gender, to marry. The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health took exactly that approach and redefined marriage to include any two persons who make a marital commitment to each other, not just one man and one woman. Several other courts, legislatures and other public officials in various states have tried to redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry. This is a serious political movement and cannot be ignored.

There is also an effort to give the substance of marriage, and the legal effects of marriage, to same-sex unions, apart from changing the formal definition or entry requirements of marriage. In some states, homosexual activists have successfully demanded the same or substantially equivalent legal effects, benefits, consequences, rights, protections, and privileges for same-sex couples as the law gives to parties who are married. For example, the Vermont Supreme Court in State v. Baker, the recent Oregon decision in Li v. State, and the California Legislature in passing its broad domestic partnership laws have given the same or substantially equivalent legal effects, consequences and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples given to married couples. They have created same-sex “marriage” in practical terms by giving the same or substantially equivalent legal effects, rights and benefits of marriage, without the label of “marriage”. This is also a very serious challenge to the institution of marriage.

To protect marriage we must protect not just the formal label, definition, or requirements of marriage, but also the unique set of legal benefits and responsibilities that make marriage unique in the law. Creating an alternative domestic union that has the same or substantially equivalent effects as marriage undermines the institution of marriage just like redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. In fact, giving the same or substantially equivalent legal effects and benefits of marriage to other unions could more seriously undermine marriage.

Historically, a unique set of legal consequences has always been reserved exclusively for marriage because marriage is a public institution with special importance to society. Marriage makes irreplaceable contributions to the welfare of children, couples, families, and society in general, and therefore deserves a unique bundle of legal protections, benefits, rights, privileges, and duties as well as the label, definition, and formal status of that relationship.

To protect marriage, a constitutional amendment must protect both the form, or definition, of marriage and the substance, or legal effects, not just the form alone. The social significance and value of marriage depends as much on the unique bundle of legal effects, benefits, rights, and privileges of marriage as on the label, definition, and formal status of marriage.

At issue is whether Idaho will recognize same-sex unions or domestic partnerships with the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as marriage. People who care about protecting marriage understand that the substance as well as the label of marriage must be protected.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

The argument in favor of redefining marriage to include any and all sexual unions essentially comes down to one claim: “fairness and social justice”. The claim is made in various ways, from the sympathetic, i.e., “because we weren’t married, I did not inherit my partner’s estate”, to the shrill, “without marriage I am deprived of dignity, humanity, personhood, and the whole range of human experience”. The persuasiveness of the claims is debatable. However sympathetic or persuasive, the “fairness” and “social justice” claim simply does not justify abandoning the long standing norms that define marriage.

Furthermore, many more relationships than those within the much publicized gay/lesbian/transgender relationships deserve social protection. What about the vast numbers of loving, interconnected, committed, emotionally, and economically dependant relationships that are not sexually defined? These are completely left out of marriage, no matter how far the term is stretched. But, if the benefits or status of marriage are so important, why should these relationships be ignored?

What about the grandmother living with grandchildren abandoned to her? What about a brother and sister who have lived together throughout life? The list goes on and on and dwarfs the numbers of the gay/lesbian/transgender community. These social relationships deserve justice too.

How will giving any benefits to homosexual people reduce the supposed “irrationality” or “discriminatory” nature of present law? In short, if the issue is social justice, fairness and equity are not furthered by simply giving homosexuals a bundle of special social benefits and ignoring all the rest. Therefore, before additional special benefits are granted to any particular group beyond marriage, we must be sure that all relationships that deserve social justice get it.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on homosexuals, on singles, or on non-traditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in a manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.

UFI calls on all Americans to join in condemning verbal abuse, violence, or any type of harassment against homosexuals. We should all offer compassion and assistance to homosexuals who seek to change their destructive behavior. All responsible citizens must adopt a similar position and work to create a compassionate society and protect the physical safety of homosexuals.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue; be they traditional couples, homosexual couples, and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those of differing opinions.

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Over the past decade, the traditional concept of marriage has come under increasing attack, primarily from homosexual activists and their political allies who are demanding that individuals of the same sex be allowed to “marry”, claiming that otherwise they are being discriminated against. In reality their real motivation for demanding the right to marry is primarily to get “official “approval of their sexual preference.

To counter this threat to marriage in the United States, Congress passed, in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which says that, for federal purposes, marriage is only the union of a man and a woman. This law also says that no state could be forced to accept as legal in their state a same sex “marriage” performed legally in another state.

For several reasons, the federal DOMA will not be sufficient to protect marriage in the United States. Most legal scholars now agree that it will be declared unconstitutional by the courts. Since DOMA was passed, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has required that state to legalize same sex “marriage”. Vermont has adopted a “civil union” law that provides same sex couples with all the benefits of marriage under a different name. Courts in Oregon and Washington have made similar rulings and cases are pending or about to be filed in other states, like California, to determine whether same-sex “marriage” must be legalized in those states as well. A federal court challenge of the DOMA has been filed as well.

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Traditionally, in the United States, issues related to marriage have been the prerogative of the states. As such Idaho has a state DOMA that defines marriage in Idaho as between a man and a woman. However, activist judges will likely impose same-sex “marriage” in each state, one at a time. We in Idaho can show the world of our commitment to protecting traditional marriage and the family by joining the 11 other states who have now amended their individual constitutions to define marriage as that between a man and a woman.

Until the state constitution is amended, Idaho’s DOMA remains vulnerable to activist judicial fiat. We must also prevent activist courts or radical legislators from creating any counterfeit marriage arrangements, such as Vermont’s “civil unions”, or from recognizing as legal in Idaho same-sex “marriages” or counterfeit marriages performed in other states. The most profound and emphatic legal and moral statement a free people can make in support of any issue or principle is to place it in their constitution, the fundamental guiding document by which they govern themselves.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Ultimately, the best solution to defend marriage is to amend the U.S. Constitution to clearly define marriage in this country as only the union of a man and a woman. This is necessitated because of a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. This provision provides that the legislative acts of one state shall be recognized as legal (i.e., given “full credit”) in any other state. The result may be that under this provision, all states would be required to recognize the legality of same-sex “marriage” if even one state were to legalize them. This has been made more probable now that Massachusetts has done so.

Homosexual activists admit that this is exactly their strategy and have filed suits in several liberal states. This is despite the fact that a solid majority nationwide oppose legalizing same sex marriage. The only way to guarantee that the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” would not force states to recognize same-sex “marriage”, if even only one other state does, is to amend the Constitution. An amendment has been introduced in the U.S. House with additional Congressional activity to take place in the next session of Congress. UFI fully supports this effort.